A few comments on McDonald vs. Chicago

If you've not read of it, McDonald v. Chicago is a landmark case recently handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that not only does the Second Amendment of the United States enshrine an individual right, but that the rights protected by the Second apply to the States and their subordinate bodies (Counties, Cities, etc) as well as federal organizations/agencies.

And it looks like the Court will be using either intermediate ("must show rational reason why a given law would not only be intended to accomplish a necessary state purpose, but a reasonable expectation that it will do so) or strict (must not only show the requirements for intermediate, but ALSO show that the law is the least restrictive approach available to accomplish the goal du jour) scrutiny. High hurdles indeed.

Whether you think that's a great or terrible idea, it opens MANY cans of worms. Expensive ones, filled with litigation and other high-priced badness.

We cannot afford the price to play, whether we are talking about as a State...or one of our cities, counties, and other subordinate bodies. We're in deep financial trouble at most every level, and jumping up and down shouting "Sue me! Sue me!" would seem a bad notion in all but a tiny number of instances (say, for instance...when either fundamental individual rights are being violated, constitutional provisions are at issue, or it would cost more NOT to litigate).

And if we can't afford it, we don't NEED to debate any further. Would you rather fund a lawsuit defending a constitutionally questionable law or regulation - or would you rather fund a school?

Fortunately, Washington (due to a prescient state pre-emption law that reserves the entire field of gun regulation and legislation to the Washington State Legislature) is far less vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits springing out of McDonald than many other (and less fortunate) jurisdictions.

We don't need much change here in order to make darned sure our state and its' cities and counties don't get sucked into an expensive judicial whirlwind. We can let someone else be the test case, and let them do it on their dime.

City and County legislative bodies can quickly scan their various legal codes to ensure that they fall within the scope of State law. At which point, they are pretty much home free - allowing them to go spend time and energy on other issues and less money on litigation.

At the state level, we have only a very few areas of potential vulnerability if my understanding is correct. We maintain a state pistol registry, largely unused, that duplicates the federal pistol registry - a redundancy that costs money, that we don't particularly need, and leaves us just as vulnerable as if we were to require journalists to have licenses. After folks stopped pointing and laughing at us, the lawyers representing the local media would obliterate any defense of such a law...and with the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms now held a fundamental individual right - it's reasonable to expect the pistol registry to be treated with about as much gentility.

It's a liability that we're well rid of, and one that we save money on by getting rid of without even being sued. We get no benefit from keeping it (anything it does, the Federal registry does better), it costs us money to keep it, and it puts the State at risk of litigation to keep it.

Our second area of vulnerability is the requirement of a concealed pistol license (as opposed to creating a list of those barred from concealed carry). Frankly, I consider this something of a long shot...but with a bunch of established case law now up for grabs, I'd support our state carefully stepping OUT of the minefield - at least until the dust settles. Lift or suspend the requirement, and let another state fight the battle...we can always revisit the subject later.

Our third area of vulnerability is fairly counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. Yet, under strict scrutiny at least, it could get us into all kinds of costly headaches. I speak of the bar ban. At first glance, it makes all kinds of sense to bar guns from bars - even folks in the gun community will agree that booze and guns are a poor mix.

Yet our neighbor to the South, Oregon, is ok with folks with guns in their bars...and it doesn't seem to lead to chaos and mayhem - which kind of undermines our position under a strict scrutiny analysis. And the same is true of several other states.

I'd really have a hard time arguing that we here in Washington are uniquely stupid, evil, or dysfunctional such that our citizens cannot be entrusted to behave as well or better(on a per capita basis) than citizens of the other states of the union that do allow "bar carry". This one doesn't really excite me, but when we're talking about "no, thank you, I'd rather the state not get sued" as a motivator, it may be worth considering.

We really can't AFFORD to be a test case right now...and our best bet is to ensure we're not targeted as such.

I'm not aware of any other potential pitfalls - but I'm not willing to bet there aren't any, either. But waiting around to have our vulnerabilities pointed out at great cost to the State by various and sundry plaintiffs...seems like a bad, and irresponsible, plan. We can do better.